Re: Gnome 2.4
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 09:20:36PM +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> <quote who="Sven Luther">
>
> > What you need official woody backports, and that is something i think
> > would be good to have, but i am not the one to decide about that, and i am
> > not sure our current infrastructure can handle it. It is ready for it, but
> > if you consider the considerable amount of network space and bandwith as
> > well as the load on the autobuilders, i am not sure it would be
> > realsitically doable.
> >
> > Also, such a project would be better discussed in a post sarge release
> > timeframe, in order not to delay the sarge release further than is
> > necessary.
>
> On the other hand, it can be done completely independently of Debian
> manpower and serverpower, by non-maintainers (cooperating with official
> Debian maintainers) who are interested in working with fresh GNOME Desktop
> packages on woody for fun or for work.
But it needs official endorsement, if not, then it will be no different
than the thousand or so savage backports that exists around the net.
> I'm sure the network of GNOME mirrors would not mind mirroring fresh woody
> Debian binaries (I'm one of GNOME's ftp master admins, btw, so this
> shouldn't be a horrific challenge).
Two things though, this will be a x86 only repository i guess, and you
would not have access to all the debian autobuilders for different
architectures, right ?
And second, would this be for gnome packages only, or a generalised
backport repository ? In particular, how would you react to having KDE
backported packages there ?
> Give me a couple of weeks. I need to set up an autobuilder for unrelated
> work stuff, so I will use that experience to build one for us, to support
> the existing woody backports.
>
> Once that is complete, I will attempt to gather hardware/bandwidth donations
> from GNOME Foundation sponsors.
>
> The official Debian maintainers won't have to do anything beyond responding
> to dependency-related wishlist bugreports, so that *hopefully*, our woody
> backports will not require much human intervention at all.
Yep, that would be nice, but in practice, many packages have problem
building in woody, due to dependencies.
> Handy, huh? :-)
Yep, but i am not sure it responds to the real need, it will just be one
more unofficial backport repository, altough probably a better
maintained than other one.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
>
> - Jeff
>
> --
> linux.conf.au 2004: Adelaide, Australia http://lca2004.linux.org.au/
>
> "I think we agnostics need a term for a holy war too. I feel all left
> out." - George Lebl
Reply to: